{"id":3611,"date":"2014-07-03T20:59:32","date_gmt":"2014-07-04T03:59:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/?p=3611"},"modified":"2020-01-09T04:20:26","modified_gmt":"2020-01-09T11:20:26","slug":"in-the-church-but-not-of-the-church","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/index.php\/2014\/07\/in-the-church-but-not-of-the-church\/3611\/","title":{"rendered":"In the Church but not of the Church"},"content":{"rendered":"

When Adam was told to sacrifice the first born of his flock, when Abraham was told to sacrifice his only son and when Joseph Smith was told to sacrifice his monogamous relationship with his wife, they were not given any kind of reason or justification.\u00a0 Rather, their response was along the lines of \u201cI know not [why], save that the Lord hath commanded.\u201d\u00a0 They were expected to comply even though they did not know and thus could give no reason to anybody who might ask, \u201cWhy?\u201d \u2013 and we have every reason to believe that other people definitely did so ask.<\/p>\n

Imagine, now, that as Eve, Issac and Emma eventually come around to complying with these instructions as well, others ask them, \u201cWhy?\u201d\u00a0 Again, their corresponding prophet figures never did – or never could give them a reason that would satisfy such questions.\u00a0 Furthermore, these people (some more than others) did not waver in the face of such relentless criticism \u2013 for that is exactly what unanswered questions which are incessantly asked amount to.<\/p>\n

Like Eve, Isaac and Emma, we too have been told in so many ways that we are to receive the will of the Lord through our priesthood leaders.\u00a0 \u201cWhether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.\u201d (D&C 1)\u00a0 \u201cNo one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith\u2026 \u00a0And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron\u2026 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church.\u201d (D&C 28) \u201cHe that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.\u201d (D&C 43)\u00a0 In our meetings we are asked to raise a sustaining hand.\u00a0 In our worthiness interviews we are asked if we sustain them as prophet, seers and revelators.<\/p>\n

All of these passages and policies serve put us in the same relationship to the church leaders as Eve, Isaac and Emma were to Adam, Abraham and Joseph.\u00a0 Just like them, we will be given instructions which we do not like or understand.\u00a0 Similar to their cases, our church leaders often will not and sometimes cannot give us the reasons or explanations when we ask, \u201cWhy?\u201d\u00a0 Furthermore, just like these people, we will also be unable to provide reasons when those around us ask, \u201cWhy?\u201d\u00a0 This is what being a faithful member of the church entails.<\/p>\n

It is also the reason why the church and its faithful members will always be persecuted by the world around them \u2013 especially within a democratic society.\u00a0 A democratic society is grounded in people\u2019s ability to request, give and respond to reasons and explanations so as to check and balance all authority figures.\u00a0 The world thus teaches that authority figures ought only to be accepted as such to the degree that they are able to provide good answers to the question: \u201cWhy?\u201d\u00a0 Unsurprisingly, the good people within our society regularly ask us members of the church to give reasons for our policies and doctrines.\u00a0 As I have argued, however, part of being a faithful member of the church entails that we will often not be able to give such reasons and as such will refuse to subject our authority figures to the checks and balances of democratic society.\u00a0 This, then, leaves the democratic world around us with nothing but irrational and sometimes violent means by which to check and balance the authority figures and the influence they have in our shared world.\u00a0 In other words, our unwillingness\/inability to provide reasons for our doctrines and policies flies directly in the face of the democratic world around us \u2013 a fact which naturally entails their inevitable persecution of us.<\/p>\n

We are thus each and every one of us in the church presented with two decisions which we must prayerfully make for ourselves.\u00a0 Will we be in the church?\u00a0 Will we be of the church?\u00a0 I would like to briefly unpack these questions, questions which will then allow us to organize our relationship to the church and its leaders along two relatively independent axes that correspond to these two questions.<\/p>\n

In order to understand the independent axes along which we can describe our relationship to the church, it will be necessary to disentangle two separate actions which are often conflated within the church (especially within the bloggernacle): disassociation and disconfirmation.\u00a0 The former involves simply disengaging from the church and going one\u2019s own way.\u00a0 The latter involves actively checking, correcting or undermining the church and its leaders.\u00a0 I cannot stress the importance of this distinction enough.<\/p>\n

Voluntary disassociation from the church and its leaders is the primary mechanism within the church for checking and balancing church leaders and their authority.\u00a0 We are constantly encouraged to confirm our testimonies, not just of gospel doctrines taught within the church, but of the men who represent and direct it.\u00a0 This is no formality, for it is the relative ease within which we are able to distance ourselves from the church that sets it in stark contrast to worldly political tyrannies.\u00a0 To repeat, the church not only tolerates but actively encourages us to pray about our relationship to the church and its leaders.\u00a0 The church also encourages us voluntarily disassociate ourselves from it and its leaders if the spirit so moves us.\u00a0 The church will never force us to accept and sustain its leaders as prophets, seers and revelators.<\/p>\n

Vocal disconfirmation of the church and its leaders, by contrast, is the primary mechanism within a democracy for checking and balancing all authority figures.\u00a0 It is to incessantly ask \u201cwhy?\u201d questions which have not been answered.\u00a0 It is to actively call for a change in policy or doctrine.\u00a0 As noted, such attempts at checking and balancing the authority of the church and its leaders will always come from outside the church.\u00a0 We would expect nothing less from a well-functioning democracy.\u00a0 Such attempts at checking and balancing the authority of the church and its leaders does not, however, have any legitimate place within the church.\u00a0 Being \u201cof\u201d the church means to understand and acknowledge that occasionally our leaders will be unwilling or unable to respond to questions of \u201cwhy?\u201d and to accept and follow their instructions all the same.<\/p>\n

We can thus divide the relationships which people might have to the church and its leaders into four basic categories: those who are neither in the church nor of the church, those who are not in the church but are of the church, those who are in the church but not of the church and those who are both in the church and of the church.<\/p>\n

\"Picture3\"<\/a>
\nI have already discussed those who are neither in the church nor of the church.\u00a0 These are the good citizens of the liberal democracies in which we live, or as we call them, \u201cthe world\u201d.\u00a0 They are not members of the church in any way and view its authority and that of its leaders like they do any other authority figure – with suspicion and doubt.\u00a0 They will never cease asking the church why it believes and behaves as it does.\u00a0 When the church is unable to give adequate reasons for these things \u2013 and it will never be able to give fully adequate reasons \u2013 the world will persecute the church in an effort to change, if not destroy it.\u00a0 It will protest.\u00a0 It will continue to ask embarrassing questions.\u00a0 If needs be, the world will occasionally get violent with the church if that is what it takes to disconfirm it.<\/p>\n

The second group includes those who have a strong testimony of the church and its leaders, but feel compelled to disassociate with them for some reason or another.\u00a0 These are members with varying degrees of (in)activity.\u00a0 Such people do support the church leaders\u2019 exclusive right to receive instructions for the church and to pass them on to the general membership.\u00a0 Many of these people have, however, been prompted by personal revelation to not follow some of the church leaders\u2019 instructions.\u00a0 \u00a0These people, I strongly suspect, are far more numerous than we might expect for the simple reason that these people do not publicly speak about or advocate their disassociation from the church.\u00a0 They disassociate from, but do not disconfirm the church and its leaders.\u00a0 While the church wishes such people would fully integrate themselves within the faithful fold, it wants even more for them to follow the Lord in their personal lives.<\/p>\n

The third group consists of those who are in the church but are not of the church.\u00a0 These are people who have not disassociated from the church despite their rejection of the leaders\u2019 prerogative to represent and direct the church without a sufficient explanation or reason.\u00a0 These are people who identify more with the democratic way of checking church authority than with the church\u2019s way of doing so.\u00a0 Consequently, they will resist disassociating with the church precisely in order to disconfirm some doctrine or teaching within it, for this is the way that authority must be checked and balanced within the democratic world.\u00a0 Whether these people are sincere or not in their repeated questioning, \u201cwhy?\u201d does not matter.\u00a0 What matters is that these people, through their vocal questioning, petitioning and protesting chaff at and undermine the authority of the church leaders.\u00a0 These are the self-proclaimed \u201cloyal opposition\u201d whose behavior, the church leaders have insisted, has no legitimate place within the church.<\/p>\n

Finally, we have the fourth group which consists of those who are both in the church and of the church.\u00a0 These are the people who keep their covenants to sustain the church leaders as prophets, seers and revelators who are under no obligation to give or respond to reasons for their instructions.\u00a0 These people know and accept the fact that the democratic world around them will never agree with them precisely because of their irresponsiveness of reason.\u00a0 The explanation for this is that they have received a personal revelation which \u2013 unlike the inactive member \u2013 has confirmed their support for the church and its leaders, even if they do not understand why.<\/p>\n

To be sure, these four categories represent over-simplifications that will rarely, if ever, perfectly match up with any individual.\u00a0 It is better, I think, to construe these categories more as a bidirectional spectrum like unto the political compass.\u00a0 Horizontally, we can ask to what degree we have voluntarily aligned our own beliefs and behaviors in our own lives with the instructions of the church leaders?\u00a0 Vertically, we can ask how supportive or condemnatory we publicly are of the church leaders\u2019 authority to instruct the general membership without answering to the checks and balances of the democratic world?\u00a0 While I acknowledge that we are in no position whatsoever to judge a person\u2019s horizontal position on this scale, I submit that church members are well within their rights in criticizing and calling people to repentance based on their vertical position.